Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

by Ian Thomason, MTheol

Introduction
The closing verses of Mark 16 are often appealed to by Revivalists as a standard “proof-
text” to authenticate their “Pentecostal” experience, internally, and externally with others.
Unfortunately there seems to be an all too common practice of selective reading within
these fellowships; the contexts of the various key biblical passages do not often seem to
be read—or applied—in their entirety, the result being that people quite often “miss the
forest for the trees”.

For many years the Revival Centres has followed founding pastor Lloyd Longfield's
idiosyncratic interpretation that Mark 16 should be read as a parable from verse nine
onwards. It would appear that this approach has been taken simply to justify the absence
of the majority of the signs outlined in the passage, within RCI assemblies. Former RCI
pastor, Drew Dixon, has written an excellent essay that appears at the “Please Consider”
website, “Mark 16: is it a Parable?”, which conclusively demolishes this line of argument
(www.pleaseconsider.info/articles/mark_16/mark_16.htm). I certainly have nothing to
add to his work, other than to note that I have consulted commentaries on the book of
Mark from the fourth century onwards in an effort to locate anyone at any point in the
history of Christianity who has offered a similar suggestion. I have not been able to find
even one. This alone should cause us to seriously question pastor Longfield's
interpretation.

Aim, method and end-state

The aim of this essay is to critically evaluate precisely what it is that the closing verses of
Mark 16 teach, when contrasted with Revivalist belief. The tools that I use to complete
the task are the standards for biblical studies, and involve a close analysis of the passage
as it appears in Greek. I will then compare the results of my examination against the two
major Revivalist positions: those of the Revival Centres International (RCI) and the
Revival Fellowship (RF). I am confident that the reader will reach more or less the same
conclusion as I: that what the RCI and RF both believe and teach concerning this passage,
is fundamentally and thoroughly flawed.

Background
I'd like to commence by briefly addressing an issue that seems to be quite controversial in
some circles. It has to do with the question of “authenticity” with respect to Mark
16:9-20.
Many Revivalists would naturally feel concerned that a good number of modern Bible
translations, including the immensely popular New International Version (NIV), contain
footnotes that read something like this:

The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark
16:9-20.

They are anxious because their preferred King James Version (KJV) does contain these
verses, consequently, they worry that the modern translations might be trying to distort,
or perhaps even remove, entire passages from the Word of God. At issue seems to be the
trustworthiness of Scripture. However, as I will demonstrate, this simply is not the case1.

There currently exist approximately 5,713 Greek manuscripts2—generally incomplete—

of the Christian New Testament, and the vast majority of these date from the eighth
century onwards3. There are two important considerations that result from this fact. First,
the date is, of course, about 700 years removed from the time in which the last New
Testament book was written. Second, it needs to be understood that the text of the New
Testament became more or less fixed, in its Greek form at least, at Constantinople
sometime between the fifth and seventh centuries. So it is not surprising to discover that
the majority of the Greek manuscripts currently known reflect what is a polished and
edited form of the Greek New Testament, one which derives from an intentional
recension undertaken by Lucian of Antioch in the fourth century, and which is now
commonly referred to as the Byzantine text type 4. This is the text form that developed in
the centuries after Constantine became the Roman Emperor, a text form which came to
be the Bible of today's Greek Orthodox Church. It is also, more or less, the same Greek
text form that underpins the much later KJV.

But we also have a number of Greek New Testament manuscripts dating from much
earlier than the eighth century, generally from the third, fourth and fifth centuries. In
addition to these we can draw upon quotations of various New Testament passages in the
writings of the Church Fathers from the second century onwards, quotations which cover
the entire New Testament less seventeen verses from Revelation!5 And finally, we have
translations of the New Testament into other languages that are from the third century
forwards6. What we discover is that the form of the Greek text that was in widespread use
during these earlier centuries—that is from Palestine through to North Africa—displays
quite marked differences to the later, more refined and “smoothed” Byzantine text type.
All the manuscripts of Mark that include chapter 16 include the text up to verse 8: “And
they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” But from verse nine onwards,
significant differences appear. In fact, there are three “longer” endings to Mark's Gospel.
They are7:

“Early, on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
from whom he had previously cast out seven demons. She went and told those who were
with him, while they were mourning and weeping. And when they heard that he was
alive, and had been seen by her, they did not believe. After this he appeared in a different
form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. They went back and told
the rest, but they did not believe them. Then he appeared to the eleven while they were
eating, and he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their hardness of heart, because
they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. He said to them, 'Go into all the
world and preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptised will be
saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany
those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new
languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will
not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.' After the
Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right
hand of God. The eleven went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked
with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.”

This is, of course, the commonest ending to Mark's Gospel, and is the one that's found in
most English translations, including the KJV.

But there is also:

“They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After
these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and
enduring preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.”

The above ending is regularly found written after the traditional “longer ending” in
manuscripts from the seventh century onwards. This would seem to indicate that there
was some uncertainty as to which was the “proper” text, so both were included, just to be
safe!

And finally, there is the version of a “longer ending” that's quoted by Jerome, early in the
fifth century:

“And they replied, saying, 'this age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who
through his demons doesn't permit the true power of God to be understood; therefore,
reveal your righteousness now!' They were speaking to Christ, and he said to them in
reply, 'The limit of the years of the authority of Satan has been fulfilled, but other terrible
things draw near, even for the sinners on whose behalf I was delivered up to death, that
they might turn to the truth and no longer sin, so that they may inherit the spiritual and
incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.'”

So, according to the Greek manuscript evidence, there are actually four endings to Mark's
Gospel! The earliest, and therefore the “best” Greek manuscripts (which is a value
judgment in any case) do not include the longer ending that is found in the Byzantine
text, and which stands behind the KJV. Neither do the earliest translations. Further,
quotes from Mark's Gospel in the letters of most of the Church Fathers from the second
and third centuries do not show any evidence that they knew the common “longer”
ending either8. It is only from the mid to late third century that endings after verse eight
start to multiply in the manuscripts, and in the letters written by Church Fathers.

So what does this mean? Do we simply ignore Mark 16:9-20? Hardly!

What I have presented above is a very brief overview of the textual evidence that clearly
indicates that the original author of Mark's Gospel, who probably wrote sometime
around AD 60, did not include verses nine through 20. However, the evidence also
suggests that “extended” endings to the Gospel began to be considered towards the
middle of the second century, and these clearly reflected traditional beliefs and
understandings held within the early Church9.

So, there are really two issues that we need to consider. First, that there is absolutely
nothing in the common “longer” ending, or in any of the other “longer” endings for that
matter, which stands contrary to the rest of the New Testament witness concerning Jesus
Christ and his teachings. Second, the Church decided to accept all of the “longer”
endings as representative of orthodox teaching when it recognized the boundaries of the
New Testament canon, sometime around the fourth century. Consequently, they all form
part and parcel of the received Scripture in use by the Christian Church Universal. So it
remains perfectly correct to appeal to Mark 16:9-20 as Scripture; but it is patently
incorrect to claim that it was originally written by John Mark, traditionally held to be the
author of the gospel that bears his name.

Mark 16:15-18

Having now spent a little time reviewing the history of the passage, we're in a position to
move forwards, to consider precisely what it is that Mark 16:15-18 teaches.

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone. The one who
believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be
condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive
out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands,
and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the
sick and they will recover.”10

Jesus' parting words to his disciples were, “go into the world, and preach the gospel to
everyone!” To Christ, the most important thing in the world was not that the disciples go
into it, but that the gospel was preached. The single Greek imperative, in other words the
sole command of the verse, is κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, translated as “preach the
gospel” into English (the word that is rendered “go” is simply a Greek participle 11). It
would probably be quite well known that I fundamentally disagree with the various
Revivalist churches over just what it is that properly comprises this all-important gospel.
I offer that a misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel invariably leads to a
misunderstanding of the nature of, and the requirements for, salvation. History
demonstrates that such confusion all too frequently results in a rapid spiral into works-
based, human-centric and fear-breeding forms of religious legalism, given that legalism
remains the natural “religion-of-choice” for spiritually fallen human beings.

Having been presented with the content of the gospel (which is summarized in verse 15),
the hearer is forced into making a choice: to either believe, or to disbelieve (so verse 16).
The person who believes, Jesus assured his disciples, will be baptized and will be saved.
However, the one who chooses not to believe the gospel of Christ will stand condemned.
It is at this point that we need to take note of several important features of Greek
grammar. The words that has been translated “believes” (πιστεύσας) and, “is
baptised” (βαπτισθεὶς), are both aorist, active voice participles, whilst the verb “will be
saved" (σωθήσεται) is future tense, in the passive voice, and indicative mood. What this
grammatical verbiage indicates, is that the person who exercises belief in the gospel
message, the person who demonstrates that he or she truly believes by being baptized (the
aorist aspect being generic in this instance), can rest in the certainty of receiving
everlasting life from God, into the future. It is crucially important to understand that the
“being baptized” component remains secondary to the “believing” component, as (1) the
Greek coordinate conjunction translated “and” functions in a cumulative rather than in a
copulative sense, and (2) that this remains a normal role of the second protasis in implied
conditional Greek sentences12. In other words, a lack of baptism will not lead to a lack of
eternal life (contra, especially, the teaching of the RF)13. The same, of course, is true for
the oft-quoted Acts 2:38 proof-text.

We now arrive at the most disputed portion of this biblical passage: Christ's teaching on
the “signs”, themselves.

These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons;
they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and
whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick
and they will recover...

Given that Jesus used the Greek plural for “signs” (σημεῖα) in our passage, the first
question that we need to ask ourselves is simple: how is this word used within (1) the
New Testament record generally, and (2) in Mark's gospel particularly?

According to my exhaustive Greek Concordance14 the word shmeion (being the

nominative, singular, neuter form; which is to say, the “dictionary” form of shmeia)
appears 77 times throughout the New Testament. Most of the occurrences are in the
gospels (48 times, with six occurring in Mark); however, the word also appears in Paul's
writings (eight times), in Hebrews (once), and in John's Revelation (seven times). The
standard definition is, “(1) a sign or distinguishing mark whereby something is known,
and (2) an event that is an indication or confirmation of intervention by transcendent
powers.”15 According to the extended discussion that fills two subsequent columns of
Bauer, the second definition is the one that best suits our current passage (along with four
of the other five occurrences of the word in Mark's Gospel). In this respect, shmeion has
within its semantic domain the concept of “miracle”. A standard Greek lexical reference
work16 distinguishes clearly between shmeion, and teraς (“miraculous sign”), but notes
that the latter occurs exclusively in the plural, and is only found in combination with the
former in the New Testament. This would indicate that Mark intended for his readers to
understand that the “signs” of 16:17 point to the direct intervention of God, and then in
an openly miraculous way.
We should particularly note that Mark went further, in that he describes five specific
“signs” (note they are plural) that would “accompany” (a future tense, active voice,
indicative mood verb) those who “believe” (once again an active voice, aorist participle).
They are: (1) that in Christ's name they will drive out demons; (2) they will speak in new
languages; (3) they will pick up snakes with their hands; (4) whatever poison they drink
will not harm them; and finally, (5) that they will place their hands on the sick and they
will recover.

The RCI understands the majority of these “signs” (specifically, numbers one, three and
four) to be somehow “parabolic” or metaphorical. One wonders whether or not this has
more to do with their organization rejecting the existence of demons philosophically,
coupled with their belief that Mark surely could not have meant literally what he appears
to state with respect to the handling of snakes and the drinking of poison. Consequently,
the RCI teaches that the first “sign” really ought to be interpreted as “the casting out of
false religious ideas”. The third “sign” then refers to “the handling of sly, malicious
people”, with the fourth “sign” relating to “the hearing of false doctrine without being
harmed spiritually”. Of course, Drew Dixon's article at “Please Consider” conclusively
demonstrates that this sort of interpretative wrangling simply is not honest.

The RF, on the other hand, apparently accepts the literal interpretation of the majority of
Mark's “signs”, but understands them to be latent promises within each individual and
true believer. Promises to be called upon, when, where, and as required. The difficulty
with this interpretation, however, is that it confuses what Mark calls “signs”, with what
Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians as “spiritual gifts”. The former serves to demonstrate the
reality of God to an unbelieving world, the latter serves to build-up an already believing
Christian community. In reality though, the RF has also attempted to reinterpret away the
clear and simple teaching of Scripture, because it does not conform to the organization's
doctrine, experience, or practice.

Because the Revivalist groups universally claim the gift of tongues (the reality of the gift
being a biblically defensible position, the universality of the gift not being so), and
because they universally link this particular spiritual gift with the receiving of God's Holy
Spirit in the mystery of salvation (which is not a biblically defensible position); they
cannot simply jettison Mark 16:15-18 due to the difficulties that a straightforward reading
of the passage presents them with.

“Yes, all must speak in tongues! We do see some people being healed through prayer
sometimes. But if they are not healed, then clearly they lack faith! No! We will not have
any of that demon 'stuff'-and-nonsense here! And do not even begin with the poison-
drinking, snake-handling rubbish!”

Unfortunately though, Mark does not allow for so casual a picking-and-choosing of what
one is prepared to accept as valid when it comes to the “signs” that Mark 16 presents. To
him, one either accepts the lot, or one rejects the lot. Why? Because the grammatical
antecedent to the “they” that is implicit in each of the third person “sign” verbs (“drive”,
“speak”, “pick up”, “drink”, and “place”), is the same “those who believe” of verse 17,
and which mirrors the “whoever believes” introduced in verse 15. Therein lies the
Gordian knot that the Revivalist groups have unsuccessfully attempted to unravel.
According to the logic of the two Revivalist interpretative positions, all believers must
evidence all of the signs, all of the time (noting, of course, that a “sign” is only a sign
when it is on display).

Such is the problem. However, there remains, of course, a perfectly valid and biblical
solution. The RF in particular, has assumed two things about Jesus' words at the
beginning of verse 17: “these signs shall accompany those who believe”. First, that the
future tense indicates a promise rather than a prediction. And second, that it remains a
promise to all believers. However, given that the statement appears after a conditional
sentence (16:16), and given the entire range of subsequent contextual grammatical
conditions that Mark presents: “...he that...and is...shall be...”, it is decidedly clear that
the statement itself should be understood in the reverse: as a prediction rather than as a
promise. This is reinforced by the fact that each of the six instances of third person plural
verbs mentioned with respect to the “signs” of verses 17 and 18 are Greek categorical (or
“generalizing”) plurals. Categorical plurals separate and distinguish one group from
every other group. This form of plural exists in Greek, as it more easily yields itself to a
generic notion: the focus is more towards the action, than it is towards the actor (i.e. “this
is the sort of person who does this”). In our text the “signs” serve to distinguish Christian
believers as a group, from every other group of people on the planet.

Our current text does not teach that all believers will cast out demons through to healing
the sick. The stress is not on the notion of “promises” given to believers, it remains on
the authentication of Christianity as being from God, before an unbelieving world. The
passage, therefore, teaches that some Christians may speak in tongues. Others may cast
out demons. Others still may be involved in the range of supernatural effects that are
described, but these effects are simply one part of what it is that demonstrates the
uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group separate to, and separate from, every other
group in existence! The effects—the “signs”—are not individual promises, they are
corporate predictions.

Conclusion

Revivalists collectively appeal to Mark 16:15-20 to authenticate their shared spiritual

experience of “tongues”, and further, to validate their unique theology that one must
speak in tongues in order to be a “true” believer. However, as has been clearly
demonstrated from the Greek text, Mark 16:15-20 does not reflect or represent the
Revivalist theology, its experience or its actual practice. Each of the Revivalist groups
has gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to explain-away the “missing signs”,
when what has really been missing is a proper appreciation of the passage's true meaning,
as it stands. The Revivalist groups, quite simply, have gotten Mark 16 wrong.

In closing, the grammar of the Greek text of Mark 16:15-20 does not support what the
Revivalist groups teach. In fact, it stands directly against this Revivalist dogma.
Footnotes
1
I've personally undertaken undergraduate and postgraduate training in New Testament
textual criticism. This is the close study of the ancient New Testament manuscripts, their
similarities and differences
2
Of which only about 50 are complete New Testaments
3
Approximately 85% of them
4
Named as it is after the Byzantine period which began at Constantinople
5
Almost 1,000,000 quotations: enough to reconstitute the entire Bible (less 17 verses)
6
Approximately 10,000 manuscripts (in Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Armenian)
7
All translations from the Greek text into English are my own
8
Irenaeus (d. 200) wrote in Latin. “Towards the conclusion of his gospel, Mark says: 'So
then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits
at the right hand of God'” (Against Heresies, 3.10.6). This is clearly a direct quote from
Mark 16:19
9
Jerome (d. 419) commented that the common “longer” ending was absent from almost
all of the manuscripts known to him
10
This is a very good example of an implied conditional sentence in Greek, one using a
substantival participle in place of the formal structural markers, “...if...then...”
11
Participles are forms of the adjective that derive from verbs. What they do is ascribe to
a noun participation in the action, or state, of the verb
12
The two conditions listed in the protasis (the implied “if”) do not bear the same
relationship to the apodosis (the implied “then”). The first is the cause (“[if] you
believe”), and the fulfillment of the apodosis depends on it (“[then] you will be saved”).
The second functions as the evidence of belief (“and [if you] are baptised”), consequently
the apodosis does not depend on it for fulfillment
13
In other words, the acceptance of baptism follows on from the believing, rather than
being equal to it in obligation
14
Kohlenberger, et al., The Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament,
Zondervan, 1995
15
Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, 2000; s.v. shmeion, ou, tó
(pp.920-921)
16
C. Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol 2
(rev ed.) Paternoster Press, 1985, svv. shmeion & teraς , pp. 626-635